تأثیر نوع پوشش سیلو و محلول پاشی شیرآهک در نگهداری چغندرعلوفه‌ای.

نوع مقاله : کامل علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.

2 موسسه علوم دامی کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران

3 دانشیار، مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.

4 استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.

5 دانشیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند- سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران

6 کارشناس مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند- سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران

10.22092/jsb.2025.366088.1361

چکیده

استفاده از پوشش برای نگهداری چغندرعلوفه‌ای در سیلو در تامین خوراک دام در فصل زمستان اهمیت دارد. این پژوهش با هدف بررسی تاثیر نوع پوشش، محلول پاشی و زمان نگهداری بر کیفیت چغندرعلوفه‌‌ای در سیلوی کنار مزرعه در منطقه کرج به مدت دو سال 1400 و 1401 در قالب طرح کرت‌های دوبار خرد شده در زمان بر پایه بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی درسه تکرار طراحی و اجرا شد. سیلوی چغندر علوفه‌ای هر سال پس از برداشت از آبان ماه در کنار مزرعه تشکیل و به مدت پنج ماه نگهداری شد. نوع پوشش سیلو [کرت های اصلی (A)] در چهار سطح شامل: کلش گندم به ضخامت 10 سانتیمتر (a1)، پوشش از جنس پلی پروپیلن به ضخامت 55/0 میلی متر ضد آب با قابلیت عبور هوا (a2)، کلش گندم به ضخامت 10 سانتیمتر همراه با پوشش پلی پروپیلن به ضخامت 55/0 میلی متر ضد آب با قابلیت عبور هوا (a3) و سیلو بدون پوشــــــش (a4) بودند. محلول پاشی ریشه های چغندر علوفه‌ای با شیرآهک سه درصد ]کرت -های فرعی (B))[ شامل دو سطح بدون محلول پاشی (b1) و محلول پاشی (b2) و مدت نگهداری در سیلو (فاکتور C) شامل 30 (c1)، 60 (c2)،90 (c3)، 120 (C4) و 150 (c5) روز طراحی و اجرا شد. اندازه‌گیری حداقل و حداکثر دمای سیلوها و محیط، توسط دماسنج انجام گرفت. شاخص‌های کیفی مورد بررسی چغندرعلوفه‌ای شامل ساکارز، ماده خشک ریشه، اسیدهای آمینه، پروتئین خام، فیبر و پوسیدگی ریشه بودند. نتایج نشان داد در سال 1400 و 1401 میانگین مجموع دمای متوسط روزانه محیط طی پنج ماه سیلو به ترتیب 1019 و 993 درجه سانتی گراد و میانگین مجموع دمای انباشتگی روزانه (ADD) سیلوی بدون پوشش و سیلوهای پوشش دار به ترتیب 634 و 627 درجه سانتیگراد بود. میانگین نمره پوسیدگی و فساد چغندر علوفه‌ای (بر مبنای نمره از 9 به عنوان حداکثر آلودگی) در سیلو با پوشش پروپیلن با نمره 35/1 (کمینه آلودگی) و برای سیلو با پوشش کلش 68/1 و سیلوی بدون پوشش معادل 6/1 (بیشینه آلودگی) برای 150 روز نگهداری بود (P<0.05). پاشش شیرآهک 3 درصد موجب کاهشی معنی دار به میزان 200 گرم برتن در روز ضایعات وزنی ریشه های چغندر علوفه‌ای در سیلو شد. بهترین مدت نگهداری حد اکثر تا 120 روز با توجه به نبود اختلاف معنی دار بین ماده خشک چغندر علوفه‌ای در سیلو و مجموع دمای انباشتگی روزانه حدود 400 درجه سانتیگراد و نمره فساد و آلودگی کمتر از 2 برای مناطقی مشابه با کرج قابل توصیه می‌باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of clamp cover type and lime spraying on fodder beet storage .

نویسندگان [English]

  • Babak Babaee 1
  • Mehdi Sadeghi-shoae 1
  • alireza aghashahi 2
  • M.R. Mirzaei 3
  • Mozhdeh Kakueinezhad 4
  • P. Fasahat 5
  • manocher sadegh kohestani 6
  • batol yaghoubi niko 6
1 Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of animal Science Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
3 Associate professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
4 Assistant professor of Seed and Plant Improvement Institute- Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
5 Associate professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Agricultural Research Education and Extension, Karaj,Iran
6 Expert of the research institute for breeding and preparation of sugar beet seeds - Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

Extended abstract
Introduction
Fodder beet, with the ability to produce 12 to 16 tons of root dry matter per hectare, is superior to other forage crops in providing animal feed, especially in the winter season. The dry matter of fodder beet root contains 6.2% crude protein, 5.3% crude fiber, 64.9% sugars (mostly sucrose), and 0.16 to 1.60 MPa/lb of energy. Including fodder beet in the diet increases productivity in meat and milk production. One of the problems in producing fodder beet on a large scale is the appropriate method of storing it after harvest until consumption. Temperature, relative humidity, root damage during harvest, germination, root rot, bacterial growth, mold growth, and freezing are among the factors affecting the quality of fodder beet in silage. The aims of this study were to investigate the effect of coating type, chemical compounds that inhibit the activity of fungal and mold, and storage duration.
Materials and Methods
Fodder beet production and silage formation were performed in split-split plot in time design based on randomized complete blocks with three replications at SBSI station located in Karaj in two crop season of 2021 and 2022. The type of clamp cover as a main plot (A) consisted of four levels of wheat straw with 10 cm thick, waterproof polypropylene cover with 0.55 mm thick and air permeability, wheat straw with 10 cm thick plus waterproof polypropylene cover with 0.55 mm thick and air permeability, and clamp without cover. Foliar spraying of fodder beet roots with 3% lime milk as a subplot (B) included two levels of with and without lime milk and storage period (C) in five levels including 30, 90, 60, 120 and 150 days. Fodder beet clamp was randomly formed in a north-south direction with 2 m wide, 35 m length, and nearly 2 m high, including four coating treatments (main plot) in three replications. During five months storage, 24 samples including 12 foliar spraying samples and 12 non-foliar spraying samples were taken out of the clamps every 30 days, weighed, and pulp samples were taken and evaluated in terms of quality. The minimum and maximum temperature were measured by placing a thermometer in the center of the clamps of the main plot. The accumulation temperature index (ADD) was calculated from the equation ADD=∑[(Tmax+Tmin)/2], where T max is the maximum daily temperature of the clamp, T min is the minimum daily temperature of the clamp, and <0 Tmin is considered equal to zero. The quality indices of the studied fodder beet included sucrose, root dry matter, amino acids, crude protein, fiber, and root rot.
Result and Discussion
Results showed that the total average daily ambient temperature during five months of fodder beet storage was 1019 and 993 °C, respectively, and accumulation degree day (ADD) inside the uncoated- and the coated fodder beet was 634 and 627 °C, respectively. Storing beet in a lower ADD resulted in a better storage quality. The ADD of the propylene- and the straw-coated were 631 and 621 °C, respectively for 150 days of storage which indicates better ventilation of the straw-coated, however the straw coating did not prevent the permeability of rain or ice formed from melting snow into the clamp. This could be the reason for the significant increase (P<0.05) in the mean score of rot and spoilage of fodder beet under straw cover (1.68) as well as uncovered (1.60) compared with the propylene cover (1.35) for 150 days of storage. The use of 3% lime milk significantly reduced the weight loss of fodder beet roots to 200 g per day. According to the results of the present study, the dry matter of fodder beet roots in both years did not show a significant difference up to 120 days of storage duration. On the other hand, the range of the average total daily accumulation temperature was 398-425 oC up to 120 days of fodder beet storage and the range of root rot and contamination score for the same period was 1.35-1.68 out of 9 scores, which indicates optimum storage condition.
Conclusion
Considering the lack of significant difference between the dry matter of fodder beet in the silo and the total accumulation degree day of 398-425 oC and the spoilage and infection score of 1.68-1.35, the best storage period is recommended up to 120 days for areas similar to Karaj.
animal feed, Accumulated degree days, beet storage method, Fodder beet,
Key words
animal feed, accumulated degree days, beet storage method, Fodder beet quality
References
Abdollahian Noghabi M, Babaee B, Mansouri B, Noshad H. Effect of on-farm storage method on root mass and sugar losses of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2009; 25 (1) 71-85. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2009.976
Burcky K, Maier J. Sugar loss in beets stored in field clamps with and without cover. Zukerindustrie. 2005; 130. No. 12, 891-896
Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Mahmoudi Sb, Hosseinpour M, Ahmadi M. Promotional guidelines for fodder beet cultivation. Fodder beet cultivation promotion guidelines. 2018; ISBN: 978-964-520-616-9

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Fodder beet quality
  • animal feed
  • beet storage method
  • accumulated degree days
Abdollahian Noghabi M, Babaee B, Mansouri B, Noshad H. Effect of on-farm storage method on root mass and sugar losses of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2009; 25 (1) 71-85. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2009.976.
Anonymous. How clamping can cut losses. Sugar Beet Review. 1993; 61, No.4, 23- 27.
Anonymous. Official methods of analysis (17th Edition). Association of official Analytical chemists (AOAC). 2000; Washington, D.C.
Anonymous. Official Methods of Analysis. Association on Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1990; Arlington, VA, USA.
Babaee B, Abdollahian Noghabi M, Noshad H, Masoudi S. Effects of on-farm storage cover types and method of topping on sugar losses in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2007; 23 (1) 67-77.
Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2007.1253
Babaee B, Abdollahian Noghabi M, Mahmoudi SB. Effect of lime concentrations on reduction of sugar and mass losses of sugar beet in storage. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2010; 26 (1) 81-91.
Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2010.765
Burcky K, Maier J. Sugar loss in beets stored in field clamps with and without cover. Zukerindustrie. 2005; 130. No. 12, 891-896.
Clark P, Givens DI, Brunnen JM. The chemical composition, digestibility and energy value of fodder-beet roots. Animal feed science and technology. 1987; 18, 225-231.
Cooke DA, Scott RK. The Sugar Beet Crop Science in to Practice. Chapman and Hall, London. 1993; 683pp.
Enchev S, Dimcheva E, Kikindonov T. Dynamics of dry mass accumulation in sugar beet, fodder beet and table beet. Journal of mountain agriculture on the Balkans. 2018; 21 (3), 162-171.
Ensminger ME, Olentine CG. Feed and nutrition complete. Ensminger publishing Co. 1978; 1,417 pp.
Gunther I. Proc. 58. IIRB winter congress. 1995; 453-473.
Hartley HO. The maximum F-ratio as a short cut test for homogeneity of variance, Biometrika, 1950; 37, 308-312.
Hoffmann CM. Root quality of sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2010; 12:3-4, 276–287.
Hoffmann CM, Kenter C. Yield potential of sugar beet–have we hit the ceiling?’, Frontiers in plant science. 2018; (9) 289.
Huijbregts T, Legrund G, Hoffman C, Olsson R, Olsson A. Long-term storage of sugar beet in North-West Europe. COBRI report. 2013; No. 01, 58 papers.
Jaggard KW, Clark CJA, May MJ, McCullach S, Draycott AP. Change in the weight and quality of sugar beet root in storage clamps on farms. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1997; 129, 287-301.
Jones JB. Laboratory Guide for Conducting Soil Tests and Plant Analysis. CRC Press LLC. 2001; 365pp.
Legrand G, Wauters A. New experiments on long term storage of sugar beets: Effect of different storage temperatures according to the thermal time and effect of the harvesting conditions according to different varieties. Proceedings of the 73th IIRB congress. 2012; Brussels IIRB, 21-27.
Lescure JP. Beet Sugar Processing. The international commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis (ICUMSA). 1998; General Subject 8, 153-161.
Luterbacher MC, Asher MJC, Beyer W, Mandolino G, Scholten OE, Frese L, Biancardi E, Stevanato P, Mechelke W, Slyvchenko O. Sources of resistance to diseases of sugar beet in related Beta germplasm: Soil borne diseases. Euphytica. 2005; 141: 49-63.
Matthew C, Nelson NJ, Ferguson D, Xie Y. Fodder beet revisited. Agronomy New Zealand. 2011; (41) 39-48.
Oldfield JF, Dutton JV. Brit. Sugar Beet Review. 1969; 31, 15-18.
Olsson R. Lagringen hänger på dig, din jord och sorten [Storability depends on you, your soil, and variety]. Betodlaren. 2012; (3) 46-52.
Rapp P. Conservation: Téréos compte en degrés-jours. Cultivar. 2009; (630) 44-46.
Roggo Y, Duponchel L, Huvenne JP. quality evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris) by near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of agricultural food chemistry. 2004; 52, 1055-1061.
Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Mahmoudi Sb, Hosseinpour M, Ahmadi M. Promotional guidelines for fodder beet cultivation. Fodder beet cultivation promotion guidelines. 2018; ISBN: 978-964-520-616-9.
Sadeghi Shoa M, Jalilian Ali, Pedram A, Rezaei J, Mirzaei MR, Nemati R. A test to determine the agronomic value of fodder beet varieties. Final report of the research institute for breeding and preparation of sugar beet seeds. 2019; 19 pages.
Sheikh al-Islami R. The beet silage cover on the side of the field is standardized. Translation. Journal of Iranian sugar industries affiliated with Iranian sugar factories. 2005; (174) 29-30.
Uchkunov I, Raikov S. Productive and economical qualities of red beet candidate varieties. Annual of “konstantin preslavski” University Shumen. 2008; l (XVIII B 3) 11-21, Bg.
Van der poel PW, Schiweck H, Schwartz T. Sugar technology beet and cane sugar manufacture. Verlag Dr Albert Bartens KG. 1998; 1120 papers.
Zhang Q, Greenway H. Anoxia tolerance and anaerobic catabolism of aged beetroot storage tissues. Journal of experimental botany. 1994; 45(274), 567-575.